zazen

That's brilliant. That's the point bro - conflating hegemony with imperialism and power with domination. Hegemony or power isn't inherently bad - a hegemonic nation isn't the same as a imperial one, not all power is abused or exercised in the same way. Like I said or was trying to: being the dominant player is different to being a dominating player where you subjugate or exploit others - hallmarks of imperialism that we should all resist and that the US was correct in resisting in the past during the Soviet era. But the tide has turned in that China/Russia are now resisting US imperial power and encirclement / containment within their own neighborhood - and modern day Russia is different to its Soviet Imperialist past. What matters is how power is gained, used, and maintained. If China and Russia are addressing security concerns or building economic partnerships, that can't be equated to being imperial. Every country should have a long term strategy on how to gain power and grow - nothing wrong with that, its in the how that makes it imperial or not. Theirs a tendency to assume that any pursuit of power outside the Western model must be imperial or malevolent. But it's the Western way of pursuing power that has historically been imperial and is so even today. China, emphasizes non-interference and economic cooperation - core tenets of the very philosophies you mentioned, like Lao Tzu and Confucius. If their focus is on infrastructure, trade, and development rather than military conquest or corporate vulture funds leeching off nations - its false to frame them as imperial offenders. With Russia, Putin’s rhetoric about national pride and historical significance is no different from Western nations invoking their past glories - whether it’s “Make America Great Again” or Brexit’s appeal to Britain’s former influence. Nations aspire to greatness which isn't in and of itself a issue. The issue is how greatness is pursued. It's also extremely rare for a nation to be expansionist / imperial when it has a aging and declining population - being imperial usually goes hand in hand with the demographics needed for it. In the case of Russia - it's also already the most resource rich nation on earth by a margin, with one of the longest borders that needs defending, that requires more men it doesn't have to defend it. I think for now it's implausible to label Russia as imperialist or expansionist - until it goes beyond buffer zones to areas that pose no risk to its heartland. Its actions in Ukraine are not a reflection of imperial preference but rather a response driven by the necessity of ensuring its security. Them deploying a Game A tactic or behavior, isn't them operating a Game A mentality in its totality and operating from that ethos. A fun but illustrative analogy on the distinction between being dominant vs a dominating player: Lets say I'm the largest diner at a dining table with others - I'm big, well fed, clearly dominant. Depending on the context, that doesn't mean I am dominating others at the table by gorging all the food for myself. How did I get to that size and maintain it? If I stole food off others plates and stopped them from having their own share - that's bad and naughty of me. If I got big by tending my own garden and eating my own food, then when I got to the table I acted civilly by sharing food and passing the mains around to others at the table - that's a good boy. Not every big player is so and remains so through not playing nice with others.

What started as a great critique of psychologists has become something much more revealing: an expose of the Western psyche itself. The same binary, fatalistic thinking that has us talking past each other is the same mindset behind imperialism that the West has illustrated to the world so well. Western fixation on binary thinking, where only one game can be played at a time is a trap. In reality, Game A and Game B dynamics coexist. Utopian progressives naively think we can get rid of Game A, or don't even acknowledge its existence all together. The goal isn’t to eliminate inescapable Game A pressures but to cultivate systems where Game B principles guide long term strategy - while Game A tactics are reserved for survival. We should aim to shift the balance so that Game B principles -cooperation, trust, and mutual benefit - take precedence. BRICS offers a tangible example of this balance. These nations are working toward a multipolar world grounded in Game B values while still navigating the Game A pressures imposed by Western hegemony, and that we can never truly escape regardless. A zero-sum Game A mindset dismissing those efforts as naive reflects the West’s inability to imagine alternatives to its own predatory systems. Being in a dominant position doesn't necessarily mean acting in a dominating or subjugating way - thus lashing out at other players on the board who are gaining in dominance / rising powers challenging the current hegemon. In Geopolitics - acting out in a Game A way (aggressive), doesn't necessarily mean operating in a Game A way as a default (being the aggressor) - which is what the West actually does as a reflex. China and Russia act in Game A ways out of necessity rather than preference. There's a major difference between being in a dominant position, and behaving dominantly to get and stay there. That conflation causes misdiagnosis - misdiagnosing a nation acting in a Game A way in a certain context or scenario (primarily for survival) with how it operates in its totality. We swap the primary cause of its actions with the secondary and incidental gains it makes from those actions - in territory, power or resources - in effect framing them as an imperial actor which is only rational to resist, although they are reacting to imperial action themselves. Gaslighting wizardry at play. In the past we could afford to have a uni-polar hegemonic power, because the power to destroy the world many times over didn't exist. But in a world with multiple powers with enough power to destroy the world many times over - there's no choice but to be multi-polar and share power with others, rather than have power over others. Otherwise as the current hegemon starts to inevitably be challenged, as always happens in history (thucydides trap) - it won't be pleasant for much of the world if that hegemon arrogantly views those rising as needing to be checked back into place. Viewing anyone’s success anywhere in the world as a threat to your supremacy everywhere in the world - reflects a civilization running on a pure Game A operating system, rather than reserving Game A tactics for survival. And no, security isn’t securing your dominance and hegemony - which is another important distinction. The choice before us isn’t whether to play Game A or Game B - it’s whether we continue defaulting to zero-sum domination or consciously nurture a world built on shared stability and cooperation. The faith point @Nivsch touched on and mentioned that is very much needed is correct. But it’s not an immature idea of faith in a celestial grandfather fixing things for us (which organized religion falls for) but the mature kind of faith in our ability to nurture the nature we’ve inherited towards better ends. Isn’t that what actualizing is partly about anyway.. More related on this that I've written before:

Amazing how Elon can deflect attention away from the visa debate towards dunking on the UK by spamming Twitter/X with the grooming gang scandal. All of a sudden it’s all over X and has everyone talking - he’s made the UK headlines for also calling out Keir Starmer and calling for election. Not that any of it isn’t true or valid either, but it seems to be a cynical use of the issue to deflect from his own issues. Like a wizard of algo attention. It just comes across like he’s desperately trying to re gain popularity with the core voter base he offended - he even changed his name and profile pic (to Pepe the frog) which he has now changed back - though I’m not sure if connected. The grooming gang scandal and him sharing Tommy Robinsons documentary is a way to show his lost fans he cares about mass immigration and social cohesion to appease some racists. Dudes just spamming regarding the issue, which no doubt is an issue - but he’s weaponising it for his own gain it seems. The irony of him being a genocide enabling Zionist boot licker flies over his head though. Then there’s all these attacks occurring being framed as ISIS.. Whitney Webbs take: “Some of the same prominent people who rightly have been pointing out that the FBI and CIA are deeply corrupt (which they obv are) are now saying we should believe those agencies about the motives and identities of those behind the recent attacks and also believe FBI/CIA people that the US is now infiltrated and invested with Al Qaeda operatives poised to bring chaos to the US in 2025. Even more odd, some of these people used to rant for hours about how Al Qaeda and ISIS were creations of the US govt, either directly or indirectly. Funny how narrative management works. Al Qaeda is definitely a US creation and fear over current and/or future attacks will be used to market a complete techno-tyranny takeover. You'll be told that digital ID, digital surveillance money, and Palantir big data pre-crime algos are the only ways to stop the terror attacks and it will be disturbing to see how many fall for the ruse. Don't give into the fear and don't consent - digital ID and many of these technologies will only stick if you voluntarily comply and adopt them.”

@Husseinisdoingfine @Bobby_2021 So sad, and disappointing considering it could have been prevented. People can say that hindsight makes everyone wiser. The issue isn’t only hindsight - but refusal to see what’s always been in plain sight. If people truly saw the past and connected the dots, they would see the chain of provocations that created the so called aggressor of today. They dehumanise this aggressor to the point of not being willing to negotiate with it. After all, how can anyone ever rationally negotiate with “evil”. And even if you could, why do so when evil is notorious for not being trust worthy. From the following video - obviously has to be translate captioned but I've time stamped it:

It’s unfair to call my comment shoddy when it largely falls in line with Leo’s core insight which you agree with being accurate - “out of touch with survival needs”. It’s a forum post after all, not a dissertation where I need to get into every granular detail of real world examples which you haven’t done so yourself. I’ve broadened the question of what wokeness is including its historical parallels. That philosophical broadness enriches further critique towards case by case examples in the real world - which would be shoddy without understanding the foundational dynamics that give rise to wokeness in the first place. You dismissed OP post the same way you have mine - missing the forest for the trees. By focusing on one detail you disagreed with, you miss the broader point of how wokeness can overreach in negative ways. But this is the exact reason why movements like wokeness - and by extension, political factions like the Democrats - struggle to connect with the populist vote and risk failing to win the next election. Leo’s observation about wokeness being detached from survival needs is mirrored here: “Wokeness thrives not because it is practical or even moral, but because hard times have not yet forced it to reconcile with reality. It is, as writer Rob Henderson says - a ‘luxury belief.’ You can only afford to argue that men can get pregnant or that dismantling police departments is sensible when your belly is full and your streets are safe. But reality doesn’t debate, it demonstrates. In the decline phase of empire, luxury beliefs give way to necessary beliefs.” That directly touches on wokeness being unmoored from survival realities and existing only in the context of abundance - exactly the point Leo makes. Leo then says wokeness “fails to understand stages of development below itself,” - I highlighted how wokeness deconstructs foundational structures below itself here: “Wokism seeks to escape form, rather than evolve a better way of living within it. Progress integrates new understanding and environments with eternal principles.” Basically wokeness often rejects the “form” or structure provided by earlier stages - family units, traditional values, clear boundaries - without appreciating how they came about to meet survival and social needs. Instead of evolving those forms, wokeness attempts to erase them entirely, which alienates those still operating within them. ”Wokeness deconstructs everything while reconstructing nothing - a nihilistic carnival of progressive performance where complexity and nuance goes to die. It mistakes surface-level deconstruction for genuine liberation.”

@Twentyfirst Nicely put. First 2 minutes of this: From Mearsheimers substack Titled ''The Moral Bankruptcy of the West'' - On 19 December 2024, Human Rights Watch issued a 179-page report detailing Israel’s genocide in Gaza. - On 5 December 2024, Amnesty International issued a 296-page report detailing Israel’s genocide in Gaza. - On 21 November 2024, the International Criminal Court issued arrest warrants for Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu and former Israeli Defense Minister Yoav Gallant for crimes against humanity and war crimes. - On 26 January 2024, the International Court of Justice found that a plausible case can be made that Israel is committing genocide in Gaza. Given the West’s presumed commitment to human rights and especially to preventing genocide, one would have expected countries like the United States, Britain, and Germany, to have stopped the Israeli genocide in its tracks. Instead, the governments in those three countries, especially the United States, have supported Israel’s unimaginable behavior in Gaza at every turn. Indeed, those three countries are complicit in this genocide. Moreover, almost all of the many human rights advocates in those countries, and in the West more generally, have stayed silent while Israel executed its genocide. The mainstream media has made hardly any effort to expose and challenge what Israel is doing to the Palestinians. Indeed some key outlets have staunchly supported Israel’s actions. One wonders what people in the West who have either supported Israel’s genocide or remained silent tell themselves to justify their behavior and sleep at night.'' ----------------- If Iraq took the clothes off the empire, Gaza took the mask off it - rendering it naked for the world to see. Preachers of virtue, whilst being practitioners of violence. I will go mask off on the West, scorched earth - not as a hater, but a lover of what we claim to be but aren't in practice, or at least what our state isn't in practice. I love what the West says about itself, but hate the fact its not lived. Western imperial alchemy is turning blood into brunch spots that serve oat milk lattes and calling it progress, it’s paving and building skyscrapers over the bones of the global South which they refer to as collateral damage, and calling it development. The deepest and darkest irony of all this is this: The land that inspired so much of the West's humanity now reflects the death of it. Pagan Europe was originally a world shaped by brutal dominance and survival, deeply influenced by the harsh, resource scarce environments of the continent. Those conditions necessitated a focus on strength, conquest, and hierarchy - qualities adapted for survival in such a climate. Christianity came with its radical ethos of compassion, humility and elevation of the meek - as a counterpoint to the Pagan ethos. It introduced a different set of a principles to a world where power was the primary principle. It served as a soothing balm over Europe’s cold harsh reality and over centuries infused and reshaped European culture, transitioning it from a dominance driven worldview to one more attuned to the ideals of human dignity. The transformation was so profound that these values became the cultural backdrop of Europe and later the West. The same environmental pressures that shaped Europe’s early ethos of survival also bred its imperial mindset. Scarcity, competition for resources, and the desire to secure abundance drove Europe’s conquest focused expansion into warmer, resource rich regions. Paradoxically, the same ethos of compassion introduced by Christianity was often co-opted to justify those imperial endeavors, cloaking domination in moral language - which still goes on till today in as a battle of impulses within the Western psyche. Today, the birthplace (Palestine) of that ethos now serves as a mirror reflecting the West’s failure to live up to the values they claim to embody. We can't just look at things, but need to look through them. Like someone said, stare into the abyss long enough, and the abyss stares back. Well, stare into Gaza long enough, and it reflects the deep civilizational conflict at the heart of the West’s identity - which is a tension between the ideals it claims and the actions it takes.

If no ones critiqued it well, and I've overplayed my hand then maybe give us a hand and critique it when you have time? Isn't it being ''simply out of touch with the survival needs'' as Leo mentioned.. Or what is it then.

A major error that happens is when we conflate a position of dominance (within a hierarchy) with the behavior of being dominating (within that hierarchy). Even Ken Wilber talks about this - though I forget exactly how he worded it. On the macro, this is the mistake the West makes when diagnosing the actions of other powers challenging their power, and labels them imperial/ dominating (China or Russia). On the micro, this manifests when we take every act or disparitiy as as assault on our dignity and place in society,and call it a microaggression whilst the empire we sit comfortably in commits microaggressions around the world.

@Nivsch Great vid bro, thanks for sharing. She had a good new year video for 2025 also.

@SwiftQuill I get you. The issue is like you and others have said - overcorrection and conflating critiquing that overcorrection with terminating cliches (I like that phrasing) - essentially nuking any discourse aimed at redressing valid grievances. Also, in trying to equalise disparities we create others. This doesn’t have to be written black and white in government policy for us to point out, it can be a cultural climate and corporate posturing that influence behaviour. Essentially silent hiring x candidate over another to make the company look good, or those in it. Its actually the opposite of dignifying - to be hired based on superficial traits as what’s between your legs or the pigment of your skin, the feeling of being somewhere like some trophy - talk about being unseen.

Canada and Scandi culture is way more passive than Americans who have a more stand your ground type of mentality and stand up to shitty behaviour - they also have guns. That deters aggression a lot better. Another factor is American culture is better at assimilation. The rate of immigration matters too - rapid increases in shorter time frames means less time to assimilate whereas America has been a melting pot for much longer. Theres something about America - I think the distinctness of its identity - which makes many identify first as American, then as their origin nationality. It’s more common to hear American Asians say their American with Asian origins, whereas in Europe they usually say their Asian but obviously born/raised in Europe. Americans find it more peculiar when asked where they’re from, but like really from as in originally. Not sure if anyone else noticed that? This guy just uploaded some clips with Taliban apparently, when you see them interact thy seem like chill dudes. They use twitter / X , amusing or interesting..

A message sent with two ticks, but will it be read.. This is a constant tension that manifests itself in many domains: how to structure a society that creates quality and excellence whilst also providing equality and dignity for the collective. Or in simpler terms it could be worded: how to obtain quality (domestic or global) without creating inequality to the degree of destabilising society.

''A famous thread of all the top strategic thinkers - from Kissinger to Chomsky - who warned for years that war was coming if we pursued NATO expansion, yet had their advice ignored'' https://threadreaderapp.com/thread/1700719253685678286.html - Kissinger, in 2014, he warned that "to Russia, Ukraine can never be just a foreign country" and that it therefore needs a policy that is aimed at "reconciliation". He was also adamant that "Ukraine should not join NATO". - John Mearsheimer - probably the leading geopolitical scholar in the US today - in 2015: "The West is leading Ukraine down the primrose path and the end result is that Ukraine is going to get wrecked [...] What we're doing is in fact encouraging that outcome." - Jack F. Matlock Jr., US Ambassador to the Soviet Union from 1987-1991, warning in 1997 that NATO expansion was "the most profound strategic blunder, [encouraging] a chain of events that could produce the most serious security threat [...] since the Soviet Union collapsed" -Clinton's defense secretary William Perry explaining in his memoir that to him NATO enlargement is the cause of "the rupture in relations with Russia" and that in 1996 he was so opposed to it that "in the strength of my conviction, I considered resigning". -Noam Chomsky in 2015, saying that "the idea that Ukraine might join a Western military alliance would be quite unacceptable to any Russian leader" and that Ukraine's desire to join NATO "is not protecting Ukraine, it is threatening Ukraine with major war." -CIA director Bill Burns in 2008: "Ukrainian entry into NATO is the brightest of all redlines for [Russia]" and "I have yet to find anyone who views Ukraine in NATO as anything other than a direct challenge to Russian interests" -Pat Buchanan - assistant and special consultant to U.S. presidents Nixon, Ford, and Reagan - writing in his 1999 book A Republic, Not an Empire: "By moving NATO onto Russia's front porch, we have scheduled a twenty-first-century confrontation." Just because a nation is acting aggressively in the present, doesn't mean its the aggressor. Separate being aggressive from being the aggressor and instigating provocateur of a situation.

You’re totally right regarding US support for Taiwan being the most rational and strategic thing for the US or any major power to do at the time. Just as it was right to resist the expansive imperialism of the Soviet Union in the past, it’s consistent to say that Russia and China are right in resisting today’s imperial power of the US. That doesn’t make their methods morally clean, but it does make their motivations understandable. Smaller nations like Ukraine or Taiwan are caught in the crossfire between competing powers. Their sovereignty (no ones in fact) is an absolute - as we don't exist in a vacuum. Just like how nations can't choose their neighbours, we can't choose our family. I think this idealistic vision of being sovereign and free is a trap with devastating consequences. These smaller nations that are buffer zones unfortunately have to give up lesser freedoms for the larger freedom of global stability and survival. The West view Ukraine having to remain neutral as a loss (to their dominance - as if they really care about its own sovereignty lol) but remaining neutral means Ukraine avoids being ground into dust between giants. It's better to be 80% sovereign (by acknowledging your neighbours security concerns) and alive, than 100% sovereign but not alive to even enjoy that freedom (by mocking those security concerns). And neutrality isn't some unique curse of the present. The Cold War demanded similar compromises also - smaller nations play buffer zones to prevent nuclear apocalypse. The difference now is that we’ve stopped calling it what it is. Instead, we moralise about “freedom” and “sovereignty” while ignoring the geopolitical tectonics beneath our feet. Until we evolve into blissed out Buddhas capable of coexistence, or terraform Earth into a landscape of perfect buffer zones, the world we live in is one where geography shapes conflicts and sovereignty has to bend to the pressures of global stability and survival. People confuse the secondary and incidental gains of a war - territory or resources - with its primary cause. They see Russia’s moves in Ukraine and call it imperial ambition, while ignoring the deeper driver that is security and survival. No war can ever be justified, but it can be understood. What Russia is doing is ugly and brutal but it simply isn’t just about expansion - but against the expansion of an opposing imperial force wishing to encircle it - guess who. Until we acknowledge valid security concerns, we’ll stay locked in this cycle and keep swapping primary causes for secondary ones - which means we're fighting the wrong battles due to misdiagnosis - which means we are bound to repeat the same mistakes, next up with China.

A tragic incident. Like PurpleTree said, Putin has already apologised for it happening whilst investigations are on going. As for having a go at Bobby for being skeptical - its only understandable for people to be more skeptical as a default when dealing with anything coming out of the US / West, than not. After all, we've just seen them back and defend Israel who are committing a ethnic cleansing campaign in front of our eyes. Threads still popping up on this forum about death toll numbers - never mind the the destruction toll numbers - how about we take a look at that. Their ''official'' spokesperson Miller grins and gaslights us weekly - ''we've told our partner to investigate their own war crimes'' and that ''we are concerned'' - but nothing changes. I don't even have to get into the historical record of lies, psy-ops and manufactured pretexts for countless imperial behaviour over the entire existence of the US. That doesn't make someone anti-West or Pro-Russia/China - it's anti-whoever is currently the largest imperial offender on the planet with the most sophisticated media machine to obfuscate its actions and existence in far flung parts of the planet it has no business being in. For us Westerners of course this makes us uncomfortable, and we can tend to compartmentalise the fact that we live in the belly of the beast - away from the very lofty notions and high ideals that beast whispers to us daily. That gap between rhetoric and action is disorientating to say the least - so its easier to point at boogeyman elsewhere than deal with the cognitive dissonance. The US empire literally has the audacity to have their think tanks spout their plans on how to destabilise and ''over extend'' their ''adversaries''. ''The United States could extend Russia in the Caucasus in two ways. First, the United States could push for a closer NATO relationship with Georgia and Azerbaijan, likely leading Russia to strengthen its military presence in South Ossetia, Abkhazia, Armenia, and southern Russia. While the principal aim of these policies would be to extend Russia, closer relationships with Georgia, Azerbaijan, or Armenia might yield important secondary benefits for the United States. The geographic position of Azerbaijan makes it a prime location for both intelligence gathering and deterrence measures relating to Iran, especially because many of Iran’s Kurdish and Iranian populations are concentrated near the Azeri-Iranian border. Stronger ties with Georgia, hailed by the conservative Heritage Foundation as “one of America’s best allies in Europe” for providing one the largest contributions of troops to Iraq and Afghanistan, could pay strategic dividends in the future.'' https://www.rand.org/pubs/research_reports/RR3063.html Then we wonder why a lot of the world is often suspicious of the West and why people default to being skeptical when the West speaks on global affairs and incidents it can exploit - it's literally no surprise when you have Western think tank reports openly discussing destabilisation strategies lol. Thats not to say it didn't happen or the Russia didn't do it - its just pointing out the default positioning of a lot of people these days which has been set due to a precedent and track record of lies from the US empire. It's also not even whataboutism, but wherethehellareyoulookingism - it’s trying to maintain perspective in media landscape designed to make us lose it.

Not sure if this counts as corruption to fit this thread but there’s been a heated debate over H-1B visas the past couple of days - with a divergence of positions amongst the MAGA crowd between the tech and trads, with some with racism thrown into the mix of course. Parts of MAGA see it as corruption on the part of their biggest mascot Elon Musk, who they view as wanting cheap foreign labor to build his Star Trek wet dream. He justifies that dream as keeping America dominant in a world of rising challenges to its hegemony - but they view it as yet another slap on the face by elite interest. First Wall Street shafted Main Street. Now the techies who don’t live on any street and just recently aligned with them seem to be repeating the “perceived” abuse. The tech elite float above both Wall Street and Main Street in a detached cloud which seems to have a utopian and almost messianic vision for a better world. But just as they are dislocated, they dislocate natives in favour of global talent they can harvest for their own ambitions. Under Vivek’s post where he comments on how it’s a cultural problem rather than a IQ one: Vivek's post: ''The reason top tech companies often hire foreign-born & first-generation engineers over “native” Americans isn’t because of an innate American IQ deficit (a lazy & wrong explanation). A key part of it comes down to the c-word: culture. A culture that venerates Cory from “Boy Meets World,” or Zach & Slater over Screech in “Saved by the Bell,” or ‘Stefan’ over Steve Urkel in “Family Matters,” will not produce the best engineers. (Fact: I know *multiple* sets of immigrant parents in the 90s who actively limited how much their kids could watch those TV shows precisely because they promoted mediocrity…and their kids went on to become wildly successful STEM graduates). More movies like Whiplash, fewer reruns of “Friends.” More math tutoring, fewer sleepovers. More weekend science competitions, fewer Saturday morning cartoons. More books, less TV. More creating, less “chillin.” More extracurriculars, less “hanging out at the mall.” If you grow up aspiring to normalcy, normalcy is what you will achieve. “Normalcy” doesn’t cut it in a hyper-competitive global market for technical talent. And if we pretend like it does, we’ll have our asses handed to us by China. This can be our Sputnik moment. We’ve awaken from slumber before & we can do it again. Trump’s election hopefully marks the beginning of a new golden era in America, but only if our culture fully wakes up. A culture that once again prioritizes achievement over normalcy; excellence over mediocrity; nerdiness over conformity; hard work over laziness. That’s the work we have cut out for us, rather than wallowing in victimhood & just wishing (or legislating) alternative hiring practices into existence. I’m confident we can do it.'' A interesting comment on the above, from Arnaud Bertrand: ''The irony of Vivek's post is that his wrong analysis of how American culture is broken illustrates in itself how American culture is broken. I mean, how out-of-touch must one be to think people will embrace a vision where childhood must be optimized for corporate success, with less sleepovers, hanging out and fun (what he calls "mediocrity") in favor of shareholder-value-maximizing "excellence"? Especially when addressing Americans who have seen their lives destroyed en-masse by the same corporate priorities that produced this vision of "excellence". The average American family isn't choosing between math tutoring and sleepovers - they're choosing between paying for basic necessities while both parents work multiple jobs. His examples unwittingly prove the opposite of his point: shows that he describes as corrupting American culture (Friends, Boy Meets World, Family Matters, etc.) celebrate friendship, family, and community values - exactly what the US has lost in their rush to optimize everything for economic output and create an hyperindividualistic and consumerist society. That's probably why they're popular: they reflect a lost world that people aspire to go back to. He mentions China as the motivating factor here, because apparently the solution to avoid having their "asses handed to us by China" is more capitalism, treating people even more like cogs who must compete in "the global market for technical talent." That doesn't only betray a misunderstanding of what Americans want but also of China. China themselves largely hate the extreme competitiveness of their system: the people hate it and the government hates it, they all want to move away from it (hence the government banning the tutoring industry). And in any case this isn't what made China rise - China rose with a largely uneducated population, as mass university-level education is a very recent phenomenon there. No, I'm convinced that China, at a very fundamental level, rose so unprecedentedly fast for the very reason that it is one of the very few countries in the world which culture wasn't completely denaturalized by the sort of neoliberal dystopia that Vivek seems to idealize. In China's socialist system the market doesn't trump all, individualism doesn't reign supreme and, at a broader level, they still stay faithful to many of the ancestral values that have sustained their civilization for thousands of years. That's the culture that underpins it all and makes it work, not the fact that Chinese kids do too much homework. All in all, this is what makes this debate so revealing: Vivek, in trying to diagnose America's problems, has instead unwittingly illustrated them. The belief that every human activity must be justified by its contribution to GDP, that collective bonds are mere distractions from the pursuit of "excellence," and that the solution to the problems created by predatory capitalism is, somehow, more predatory capitalism.''

Thanks man, likewise. Agree on your points regarding the paper tiger. The thing is Russia / China having hypersonic provide the asymmetrical edge to tackle a otherwise mightier militarily that outspends them x number of times. People’s initial reaction is to say this is false because of the blatant act of invading another country. But it reminds me of a saying “China is a socialist country with Chinese characteristics” If we apply that same framing to capture the nuance of Russias actions it would be “Russias actions in Ukraine resemble a military operation with the tactic of invasion” - it’s a tactic but not the totality of the story. Someone can be aggressive (the one who finally acts outs ie Russia or Hamas) but not the aggressor in the situation - the one who provoked with a thousand cuts.

@gambler Absolutely nuts man

Surely the world’s greatest militaries wouldn’t just let these drones be flying freely over their airspace. Must be testing or probing for threats..

BRICS A BRICS currency isn’t imperial or tyrannical - it’s a reaction to imperialism and tyranny. The argument that challenging the US dollar is inherently bad conflates dominance with domination and power with coercion. BRICS isn’t trying to dominate the world - they’re trying to create a system where no one can dominate the world. BRICS is about multipolarity - where power is distributed among many nations. It’s not about replacing the US at the top but about removing the top altogether. Multipolarity inherently reduces coercion as there’s less room for a single power to impose its will on others. The West’s unipolar approach is like a school playground: They’ll let everyone play, but they still own the school and make the rules. If anyone challenges their authority, they get detention or expelled. The West doesn’t even have the weight to justify its self appointed role anymore. Majority of the world’s population and resources reside in non Western countries. Even on economic and military terms they are close to parity. There was a time when the global development game had only one player in town. Being the sole bidder meant they called the shots. They had power because there were no alternatives and developing countries desperately needed help. It was a buyer’s market where the buyer had all the leverage. But then China and others are coming along creating flipping the dynamic. With some competition it’s become a seller’s market where those countries can pit offers against each other and negotiate terms that work for them. Democratic at home, anti-democratic away The West loves to preach democracy and freedom, but their actions on the global stage tell a different story. They have a black and white approach to geopolitics, forcing countries to pick a side: either pledge total allegiance to the Western bloc or face consequences. It’s the schoolyard behaviour you’d expect from children, not global superpowers. They bully and strong arm nations into compliance while denying them the autonomy to navigate their own relationships with countries like Russia or China. This isn’t diplomacy but coercion. While the West loves to wag its finger at so-called “dictatorships” for their lack of democracy, it operates in a profoundly anti-democratic way globally. The West doesn’t tolerate plurality in global politics- it demands a unipolar order where every country falls in line. In essence, they commit macroaggressions on a global level, whilst their own are busy cancelling each other over micro aggressions. Contrast this with the so called dictatorships they love to vilify. Sure, countries like Russia or China might have authoritarian systems, and they might lack the Western version of democracy. But they often provide stability, and in many cases, that stability is exactly what their populations value most. If the people within those nations accept - maybe even prefer a system that works for them, isn’t that its own form of democracy? The will of the people. If a leader delivers stability and meets the needs of their people, then maybe the West’s fetishisation of their own brand of democracy isn’t as universal as they’d like to believe. The hypocrisy deepens when you realize that on a micro level, yes, these so-called “dictators” exert control within their borders. But on the macro level, the West is the one suppressing democracy by refusing to accept any dissenting voices or alternative systems on the global stage. They demand a unipolar world while their behaviour actively creates the opposite - a multipolar world where the “outcast” nations are forced to band together for survival. Sanctions against Russia, for example, have driven it toward deeper alliances with China and other Asian powers. The West, in its desperate bid for dominance, ends up accelerating the very multipolarity it claims to resist. This behaviour is counterproductive, but it’s also emblematic of the imperial mindset: the assumption that coercion is strength and compliance is unity. What we’re witnessing is not the spread of freedom but the enforcement of a rigid global hierarchy that punishes anyone who steps out of line. When offered the option of a bipolar (G2) world order instead of a unipolar one - China still opts for a multipolar one. Apologies for the length, felt the extrapolation is needed as we’re propagandised against non-Western nations, especially China. Gonna chill now and get in the festive mood. Merry season everyone.

We can broaden the discussion but have to be wary not to broaden our definitions too much or we risk diluting the meaning of the word. A trading empire doesn’t necessarily mean it’s imperial - it’s about how it’s done. Which is nothing like the past British East India company, the current neo-colonial French currency network, or todays US corporate vulture funds that privatise and orient the host nations politics and economy to primarily serve their own interests. The first article was balanced. As it said - the notion that Chinese debt traps are a malicious plot is de-bunked. Then it mentions: “China has moved to recalibrate its infrastructure finance in recent years. In 2021, Xi introduced the concept of “small and beautiful” projects better targeted at the partner country’s needs – a concept he repeated at the recent summit. It is this alignment with the requests of African leaders that differentiates China’s engagement with Africa from that of the west.” The point being that they work as partners and not in a predator prey dynamic that is exploitive, extractive or undermines sovereignty - typical hallmarks of imperialism. Western led organisations often impose rigid austerity measures and privatisation schemes that strip countries of their sovereignty and keep them indebted. China renegotiates loans, delays payments, in some cases even forgives small loans, and recalibrates to their partners needs. They focus on maintaining long-term partnerships over the short-term gains that Western corporations seek for their shareholders. The Sri Lanka case is misrepresented as an example of Chinese imperialism but here’s the context: Sri Lanka’s debt crisis wasn’t caused by China but was primarily due to borrowing from Western financial institutions at much higher interest rates than China. 10% of Sri Lanka’s debt was owed to China whilst majority was tied to Western debt. The existence of debt doesn’t make the West inherently imperial either - that’s how growth / development can be funded to countries needing it. But it’s in the nature of how it’s dealt with and the strings attached that make one kind of debt more imperial than another. China offers loans at lower interest rates and shows greater flexibility in addressing repayment issues. When Sri Lanka or any other country struggles to repay their loans - China doesn’t foreclose or dispossess the assets to undermine sovereignty. In the case of Sri Lanka port - they negotiated a 99-year lease for operational control, but the port itself remains formally owned by Sri Lanka. That allows Sri Lanka to raise immediate funds to alleviate its debt crisis while retaining ownership of the port. It’s actions are more about securing repayment or ensuring operational efficiency, not seizing strategic assets for imperial domination. The second article was framing everything negatively and is entirely ungrateful. What does the writer expect - for countries to just dish out money with nothing in return? Complaining about environmental concerns as if the industry being referred to (energy) isn’t notorious for it, or that its Chinese labour doing the work - as if it’s some small task to skill up locals to be able to operate technical machinery - and as if all that implies Sino-Imperialism. China can help build foundational infrastructure which takes a while for tangible benefits to be seen - the rest depends on the country itself to maximise and build upon that foundation. I was just speaking to a relative in Kenya actually - traffic that caused 1-2 hour travel times now takes 10-20 minutes on Chinese built high ways. Even something we take for granted such as having electricity 24/7 and not having power outages. The benefits of this aren’t immediate or obvious. Imperialism involves subjugation, exploitation, and the stripping of sovereignty. Chinas way of doing business is strategic and no doubt self-serving, but contrast it to the exploitative legacy of Western led financial practices and it’s clear it isn’t imperial. China’s actions may reflect power imbalances, but they don’t strip nations of their dignity, sovereignty, or long term control over their resources or assets. Two examples to show clearly how control is exerted: From Chat GPT “The CFA Franc system exemplifies economic control akin to modern imperialism. Used by 14 African nations, this currency system requires member countries to deposit 50% of their foreign reserves in the French Treasury, granting France significant influence over their monetary policy. These nations cannot independently print money, adjust currency values, or fully access their own reserves without French oversight. This system perpetuates economic dependency and limits policy flexibility, constraining these countries’ ability to foster growth and self-reliance. Unlike China’s infrastructure deals, which leave behind tangible assets, the CFA Franc system locks nations into a cycle of control and subjugation. The investor-state dispute settlement (ISDS) system in trade agreements, allows multinational corporations to sue governments for policies that might harm corporate profits. This makes nations vulnerable to legal action even when enacting laws to protect public welfare or promote local development. For example, if an African government imposes environmental regulations or raises taxes to support its economy, corporations can use ISDS to claim damages, undermining national sovereignty. This dynamic prioritizes corporate profit over public interest, enforcing a system that suppresses local industries and policies, unlike China’s generally non-interfering approach to its business partnerships.” That’s economic and corporate imperialism at its finest - because it undermines sovereignty coercively and orients a foreign countries economics and politics to favour the imperial nation. China comes in without domestic interference, doesn’t finger wag about human rights or how they should slow down development to save the planet - never mind that the West developed off of cheap fossil fuel energy, builds critical infrastructure needed as a stepping stone to industrialisation, listens to their partners needs and concerns, and is lenient and flexible when it comes time to service debts. It’s co-building vs extractively bleeding a nation of its resources.

Yeah, I think it’s fine to share interesting and valid messages despite the messenger not being up to par. Dan Bilzerian going at it is also signals a major shift. This situation of a political apparatus being held hostage by a foreign nation has been known but suppressed since a while: https://www.cia.gov/readingroom/docs/CIA-RDP88T00988R000100090004-9.pdf This doesn’t mean Israel can be entirely blamed for US foreign policy as US have their own interests also. It’s a symbiotic relationship - with plenty of deception involved - but it seems theres more deception from Israel than the other way round.

It's a false equivalence to conflate territorial disputes with conquest. This is why context matters because two actors can do the same act on the surface but inhabit totally different realities. They'll get the same headline but have different stories. It's technically true that both Israel and China are getting more land, but not totally true in the sense of the how and why. That's the difference between being a dominant player and a dominating player in a game. Israel’s actions are like breaking into someone’s house, evicting them, and claiming the deed as your own - quite literally in this case. China’s disputes are like arguing over where the fence should go between two yards that have been poorly marked for decades. It's messy and contentious but not outright subjugation and war between neighbors. Saying China has so many territorial disputes, therefore implying it's imperial and expansionist, is like saying America has the most laws in the world, therefore it’s tyrannical and anti-freedom - a libertarian position. Asia and specifically Southeast Asian has a distinct geography with plenty of archipelagos and islands that are being worked out between neighboring countries - that doesn't equate to any of them being imperially expansionist - unless we broaden the definition of the word to include every assertive act of a nation as such. From Chat GPT: The Neighborhood Analogy Picture a chaotic neighborhood where no one can agree on boundaries, and everyone has their own interpretation of the rules. Let’s break it down: China: China’s the neighbor obsessing over the property lines. They’ve dusted off some ancient maps their ancestors drew centuries ago and insist the shared driveway belongs to them. Sure, they’ve put up a few fences and planted some shrubs on disputed land, but no one’s been kicked out, and they’re still yelling about it at every block meeting. This isn’t imperialism; it’s territorial nitpicking. Russia: Russia’s watching nervously as NATO, a known homewrecker with a baseball bat, moves into the neighbor’s house. Russia doesn’t trust this situation, so they break into the yard, lock the shed (Crimea), and stand guard over their cousins camping out in the backyard (Donbass). It’s messy and aggressive, but they see it as survival, not conquest. Israel: Israel’s playing an entirely different game. They march into someone else’s house, bulldoze half of it, remodel the rest, and claim it was theirs all along. They don’t just stop there—they move their friends in and put locks on every door. It’s not about defense; it’s about occupation and domination. America: The U.S.? They’re the neighborhood enforcer, walking around with a clipboard and a security badge they gave themselves. They install cameras on every street, charge tolls on the roads, and sometimes bulldoze whole blocks because they think the layout “needs improvement.” They say it’s for everyone’s safety, but somehow, their house gets bigger and shinier every year.

@BlueOak We have to take into account the context, intent and scope of actions taken. Two actors can behave in the same way but with different motives and to different extents. Distinctions and nuance matter otherwise on the spectrum of behaviors we can end up including actions into a certain definition they barely should be in. Its easy to fall into the trap of conflating aggressive, assertive and authoritarian actions as imperial. A nation navigating its national security concerns domestically and around its borders, consolidating territorial claims it has historic ties to, and securing economic partnerships - isn't necessarily imperial. A nation may also be a dominant player but not a dominating player ie being a major trading partner of a country means your a key dominant player, but that doesn't imply they've dominated their way into that position. ''You think these people are somehow more enlightened and not driven by the exact same 6 human needs we all are?'' - motivations for power and security are universal, the form they take matters. China’s strategy prioritises economic leverage, regional security and non-interference over coercive domination, exploitative resource extraction, and dictating domestic politics and governance in a way that undermines sovereignty. Its better described as economic statecraft rather than imperialism. In general - "The hallmark of imperialism is the exploitation, subjugation, and domination of foreign lands and peoples, driven by the intent to accumulate power, wealth, and resources for the imperial entities gain." Tibet (Domestic consolidation, not foreign conquest) Tibet wasn't formally recognised as a sovereign nation state by the international community - which is why it's largely been accepted as part of China’s territory. Tibet was historically part of China’s sphere of influence, although with plenty of autonomy. Its incorporation in 1950 was less about expansionist ambition and more about consolidating historical claims and securing national borders during a period when nations around the world were doing the same. The context and backdrop was that China became fractured from their civil war and needed to unify itself. The century of humiliation was a wound that was still healing, and the British who inflicted it only left India which got independence in 1947 - that included their presence in Tibet. The Opium wars showed them how foreign powers can use trade,military force, and regional footholds to destabilize and dominate them. Their vulnerabilities and the need to have buffer zones to protect their core territory was at the forefront of their mind. So the lack of formal recognition for Tibet’s independence, the historical ties to China, and the history they were just coming out of distinguish it as case of territorial consolidation rather than the annexation of a foreign sovereign state. It's contentious but not outright imperial conquest. Framing every move China has made since then as imperialistic, based on a single historical event during a very different global context is a mis-characterisation. East Turkestan or Xinjiang Conflict (National security - Domestically authoritarian, not imperial) Like mentioned on the page before, no country wants to secede and fragment itself. Scotland from UK, Catalonia from Spain - both have been contested and blocked from getting to critical levels that threaten the unity of the state. It's natural for countries to maintain their territorial integrity and national security. Having violent separatists within your territory cause chaos and disruption is something no serious nation will stand for - especially when they could possibly be co-opted by foreign players hostile to you, especially if your aim as a country is long term strategic development of your people. No doubt their response is authoritarian and against human rights. But it's not quite imperial when its internal governance with a strong fist. It isn't foreign subjugation and it wasn't prolonged internal subjugation either as it ended in 2019. https://x.com/RnaudBertrand/status/1868177840048628167 ''Wait, aren't these the very same Uyghur separatists that the US State Department said they had "no credible evidence" existed, and that Mike Pompeo decided to remove from the US's list of terrorist organizations in 2020? How bizarre that this non existent group were key players in Assad's fall and are now aiming their gunsights on China... Also could it then mean that the Chinese government's argument that it was fighting separatism in Xinjiang by self-described "mujahideens of East Turkistan" was not a mere "pretext for a crackdown" as the West argued. By the way, interesting to contrast China's response to this challenge with Assad's. Whilst Syria broke down in a full scale civil war, China did indeed operate a "crackdown" that involved identifying all the people in Xinjiang who empathized with this ideology and sending them to what it called "vocational education and training centers" (and what the West calls "reeducation centers"), where they were basically given a choice: either re-integrate into society by learning a useful skill (hence the vocational education and training aspect) or you'll be headed to prison next. They ran this program during approximately 2 years until December 2019. At the same time, China spent a considerable amount of resources developing Xinjiang which saw its GDP per capita increase by 150% since 2011, whilst Syria's own GDP per capita was divided by 5 with the civil war. They notably developed the tourism industry, transforming Xinjiang into one of the most visited Chinese provinces, with an astounding 265.44 million tourist visits in 2023 alone (https://english.news.cn/20240109/5f18d0e79b9b4208ac7e95d9fbfa2d28/c.html…). Xinjiang's GDP per capita (around US$10,469, https://ceicdata.com/en/china/gross-domestic-product-per-capita/gross-domestic-product-per-capita-xinjiang…) is now higher than countries like Brazil, Thailand or Vietnam.'' This situation exposes the often dangerous naivety of Western "human rights" groups. What exactly did they wish would happen in Xinjiang? What should you do when you see one of your provinces being targeted by the same militant groups that just helped reduce Syria to rubble? Looking at the outcomes, one has to wonder whether these 'human rights' advocates ever seriously considered the human cost of what they were advocating for. The metrics that matter for actual human rights - people's safety, their ability to live and work in peace, access to education, economic opportunities, freedom from violence - all point to the superiority of maintaining stability through development over allowing militant groups to operate freely.'' This situation reveals yet again the often contradictory and hypocritical nature of Western foreign policy. The same militant groups can be labeled as 'non-existent' or removed from terrorism lists when operating against geopolitical rivals, then suddenly become visible when operating elsewhere. Even more tellingly, when China responds to this threat with a combination of security measures and economic development, it was condemned by the same Western powers that have conducted decades of military interventions, drone strikes, and indefinite detentions across multiple countries in the name of fighting terrorism - with far more devastating consequences for civilian populations. The hypocrisy is striking: apparently, it's acceptable to kill and displace millions in the name of fighting terrorism, but attempting to prevent it through economic development and rehabilitation programs is somehow beyond the pale.'' Sea dispute claims (Contentious territorial security reacting to US naval presence) China’s actions in the East and South China Sea involve regional territorial disputes with neighboring countries, not the conquest or subjugation of sovereign states. They are asserting sovereignty over maritime zones and securing strategic trade routes, not dominating or exploiting other nations in particular. This is also a response to US naval presence in a critical area that China uses for its trade. When you have a hostile nation eyeing you up as the next major threat after Russia, your bound to fortify your own neck of the woods in the South ''China'' Sea, so they can't choke you off. It's reactive defensive posturing, not proactive domination and exploitation over other people and lands. They're settling boundary issues and territory, similar to the Kashmir region between India and Pakistan - but India or Pakistan can't be said to be acting imperially in a disputed territory within their very own region. China's actions are reduced to being imperial - for literally responding to the imperial actions of the US who continue to boogeyman them into the villain category. Similar to Ukraine / Russia - it's a reactive and defensive oriented approach to encroachment and containment - any resources that happen to come from it are incidental and secondary but not primary. Intent and scope matter. They aren't subjugating people or extracting resources from resource rich lands - simply securing their trade routes so they can do business which is consensual and participatory, and the right of every nation. The worlds current hegemon unfortunately has a habit of economic sanctions and crippling their adversaries who challenge their dominance. “Long before China began building its now-infamous artificial islands, countries like Vietnam and the Philippines were already reclaiming land in the area. In the 1970s and 1980s, Vietnam fortified reefs and built outposts in the Spratly Islands, while the Philippines followed with its own reclamation projects in the 1990s. Even Japan, in the East China Sea, had engaged in activities to bolster its territorial claims. By the time China entered the picture with large-scale land reclamation in 2014, it was decades behind its neighbors in these practices. The notion that China’s actions are imperial by design conveniently ignores the geopolitical context that precipitated this escalation. In 2011, the United States announced its “Pivot to Asia” strategy under President Obama, a clear shift in focus to counterbalance China’s growing influence. This involved strengthening military alliances, deploying advanced weaponry, and increasing the U.S. naval presence in the region. For China, this pivot was perceived as nothing less than an attempt at encirclement—a continuation of Cold War-style containment. Proof of this shift is evident in the U.S.‘s enhanced military agreements with countries like the Philippines and Vietnam, and in its expanded “freedom of navigation” operations to challenge China’s claims. By 2014, China’s artificial island-building was a direct response to this perceived hostility. Far from an imperial land grab, it was a calculated move to secure its strategic interests in the face of growing Western military encroachment. The islands served as a defensive countermeasure, a way to assert control over vital trade routes and deter potential threats. The fact that China built these islands decades after its neighbors and under the pressure of U.S. containment policies undermines the claim that this is purely about imperial ambition. It’s not dominance for the sake of conquest—it’s about survival in a geopolitical game.” I'll comment later to discuss how China deals with foreign nations in business and trade next - all the above is the regional and domestic side covered.

That’s good. There seems to be some kind of ceasefire deal progressing with Saudi - Hamas - Israel.